U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–378 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–878 

THE SECOND CHANCE ACT: STRENGTHENING SAFE 

AND EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY REENTRY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 21, 2010 

Serial No. J–111–101 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRIAN A. BENZCOWSKI, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 167 

Grassley, Hon. Charles, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa .......................... 2 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 172 

WITNESSES 

Duran, Le’Ann, Reentry Project Director, Justice Center, Council of State 

Governments, New York, New York ................................................................... 5 

Husock, Howard, Vice President, Policy Research, Manhattan Institute for 

Policy Research, New York, New York ............................................................... 12 

Muhlhausen, David, Senior Policy Analyst Center for Data Analysis, The 

Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC .............................................................. 10 

Pallito, Andrew A., Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections, Waterbury, Vermont .................................................................................................. 3 

Rodriguez, Sol, Executive Director, Open-Doors, Providence, Rhode Island ...... 8 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Andrew A. Pallito to questions submitted by Senator Cardin ...... 23 

Responses of Sol Rodriguez to questions submitted by Senator Cardin ............. 31 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Duran, Le’Ann, Reentry Project Director, Justice Center, Council of State 

Governments, New York, New York, statement ................................................ 149 

Husock, Howard, Vice President, Policy Research, Manhattan Institute for 

Policy Research, New York, New York, statement ............................................ 169 

Muhlhausen, David, Senior Policy Analyst Center for Data Analysis, The 

Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, statement ........................................... 174 

Pallito, Andrew A., Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections, Waterbury, Vermont, statement and attachments ................................................. 188 

Robinson, Laurie E., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Program, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 209 

Rodriguez, Sol, Executive Director, Open-Doors, Providence, Rhode Island, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 213 

(1) 

THE SECOND CHANCE ACT: STRENGTHENING 

SAFE AND EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY REENTRY 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:44 p.m., Room SD– 

226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin, Whitehouse, Franken, Sessions, and 

Grassley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. First off, I apologize for being late. I was just 

telling Senator Grassley, as I told Senator Whitehouse outside, 

that another Senator and I were on the subway, chit-chatting, 

waiting for the subway car to come; great, interesting conversation; 

suddenly realized there was no subway car. It had broken down. 

So we hoofed it over. So I apologize. 

Today, we are going to consider the important issue of how best 

to ensure that when people get out of prison, they become productive members of society rather than turning to a life of crime. And 

many states are making great strides with innovative prisoner reentry programs. We are going to hear about some of those efforts 

today. 

In 2008, we passed the Second Chance Act to give Federal, state 

and local governments additional tools to help inmates more successfully get back into their communities upon release, and we are 

going to hear about what impact it might have. 

It is interesting. The Senator I was talking with is from a large 

state and I think he would probably consider himself a Conservative Republican and was strongly backing Second Chance and the 

fact that if we want to get people back into employment, there has 

to be some way to do that. 

We passed the bill, after a lot of work and compromise, unanimously. Next year, it will need to be reauthorized and I hope we 

have the same bipartisanship again. 

I worked with Senator Brownback and Senator Specter and then 

Senator Biden to pass it the first time. I know that Senator Cardin 

has a strong interest in this area. Senator Whitehouse has shown 

a great deal of leadership on prison reform and reentry and he is 

helping at today’s hearing. 

2 

We have passed several new criminal laws, both in Congress and 

the states, creating more and longer sentences for more people. 

Now, a number of the states are realizing that costs them a lot of 

money. California, for example, is facing some horrible problems. 

There are currently more than 2 million people in jail or prison. 

More than 13 million people spend some time in jail or prison each 

year. 

I know from my own experience as a prosecutor, most of these 

people sometimes return to our communities. Now, what kind of 

experience they have in prison, how we prepare them to rejoin society, is actually going to affect the communities we live in. It is 

going to affect them a great deal. 

Before we passed the Second Chance Act, Vermont and other 

states were implementing innovative programs to build safer and 

stronger communities by ensuring that people in prison receive 

services to help them become productive members of society when 

they come out and not go back into crime. 

The Second Chance Act builds on this important work. It also 

says, that state and local corrections agencies and nonprofits, educational, institutional service providers, families, that if they are 

going to have a grant, they have to demonstrate measurable, positive facts, including a reduction in recidivism. 

It takes an important step toward the goal of reducing the nationwide recidivism rate of 66 percent. That, of course, will decrease the annual nationwide $8.2 billion cost of incarceration. 

Now, the Vermont Department of Corrections and many others 

in Vermont are strongly supporting this crucial piece of legislation. 

It gives me a sense of confidence, when I go home to Vermont, that 

it is making our state safe and those others who are doing it 

around the country and making the country safer. 

And this is not in any way a partisan issue. We have a Republican Governor, myself, we both agree with this, but nobody even 

looks at it as a Republican or Democratic issue. They just look at 

it as a sensible one. 

I know that Commissioner Andrew Pallito is here. He has had 

great success helping reentry programs, and I look forward to hearing from him. 

Also, I welcome Le’Ann Duran from the National Reentry Resource Center; Sol Rodriguez, Open Doors of Rhode Island, we are 

going to hear how that worked in Rhode Island. 

I have no compunction against tough sentences when it fits the 

crime, but I also want to know that some days the jailhouse door 

is going to open and we ought to have somebody come out who can 

be in society. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Grassley, did you want to add anything? 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. First of all, I am only going to be able to be 

here until 3. So I will be able to hear a couple of the witnesses. 

And I want to be on top of this issue, because, obviously, keeping 

3 

people behind bars if it is not necessary is very much a costly product that hits states worse than it hits the Federal Government, but 

all taxpayers are paying more. 

And the extent to which everybody has something to contribute 

to our society, we ought to encourage that contribution and not to 

have the recidivism rate that we have is very, very important. 

I am interested in knowing how the programs are working and 

I’m interested in knowing what other ideas might be out there. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

Chairman LEAHY. The first witness, Andrew Pallito, is the current Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections, a 

role he has held since 2008. He previously served as deputy commissioner, as management executive overseeing the department’s 

administrative, financial, information technology and training 

needs. 

He serves on the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council, 

which oversees the training of individuals from all law enforcement 

agencies in Vermont. 

He began working in Department of Corrections in 2001, did 9 

years serving other parts of the Vermont City Government, including the Agency of Human Services. 

He is a graduate of the Vermont Leadership Institute, received 

his bachelor’s degree from St. Peter’s College. 

He is joined by his wife today. And I will just mention on the 

side, she was born in Barre, Vermont, the same place my father 

was born. 

Mr. Pallito, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW A. PALLITO, COMMISSIONER, 

VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WATERBURY, 

VERMONT 

Mr. PALLITO. Mr. Chairman and fellow members, thank you for 

the opportunity to speak to the Committee today regarding the 

issue of offender reentry and for the opportunity to showcase some 

of the innovative work that we are doing in Vermont. 

Our work in engaging community partners in offender reentry 

has been brought on by an explosive growth in incarceration. In 

1990, Vermont had roughly one-third the number of offenders that 

it has in 2010, representing an increase of a staggering 160 percent 

increase in incarceration. 

To manage this growth over the past 20 years, the state has built 

several new correctional facilities and today houses roughly onethird of its offenders in out-of-state private contracted facilities. 

This unprecedented increase has placed an enormous burden on 

the state’s general fund. The Department of Corrections’ annual 

percentage growth continues to take a larger and larger share of 

the state’s available resource and has outstripped our ability as 

Vermonters to sustain many other programs. 

There is good news, however, in that the annual rate of growth 

has slowed. This, I believe, has been accomplished by a number of 

new strategies which affect the number of offenders coming into 

the system, such as diversion programs and the manner in which 

offenders are released from facilities. 

4 

Over the past few years, my department has been engaging and 

educating communities throughout the state about the importance 

of solid release planning for all offenders, including those with very 

violent histories. 

What differentiates Vermont’s response to reentry from traditional approaches is the philosophical foundation of restorative justice principles and community involvement. 

By providing returning offenders with high measures of support 

and accountability, fostering meaningful participatory community 

connections, and leveraging the informal social influence exercised 

by family and neighbors, we effectively complement best correctional practice for a more successful reentry process for offenders. 

The support and accountability derived from these relationships 

increases offender investment and opportunity. We have seen this 

with our work with Circles of Support and Accountability, also 

known as a COSA. A COSA is a group of five or so individuals who 

are trained in the need areas of particular offenders and who, in 

turn, hold an offender accountable while assisting and supporting 

them with the reentry process. 

COSAs are coordinated by local municipal community justice centers. There are 12 such community justice centers located throughout the state. 

Increased citizen participation has resulted in diminishing public 

resistance toward offender reentry. This dramatically improves an 

offender’s potential for success, and can achieve a reduction in recidivism. 

Complementing the COSA process is the offender responsibility 

plan, also known as the ORP. The ORP is our case management 

system for coordinating, delivering and tracking the range of treatment and work readiness development services specific to the offender’s strengths and needs. 

This document evolves over time to reflect the offender’s 

progress, including pre-release services such as vocational assessment, housing readiness, benefits eligibility, transitional planning, 

and post-release supervision and services, behavioral assessment 

and therapy, substance abuse treatment, employment, parenting, 

and other family obligations. 

Over the past few years, we have formed critical new partnerships with offender-serving agencies throughout Vermont. These 

include the Department of Labor, the Social Security Administration, the Veterans Association, the judiciary, and other Agency of 

Human Services such as the Economic Benefits Division, the Office 

of Child Support, the Department of Health, and the Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse. 

Through these initiatives, we have fundamentally changed the 

reentry service delivery system in Vermont. We have incorporated 

the leveraging of stakeholder relationships on both an interagency 

and interpersonal level in to our case planning and reentry practices. 

Many of the individuals who have reentered with the assistance 

of community-based support cite the critical role these services 

have played in allowing them to get their footing and get out of 

prison. 

5 

Targeted reentry services, such as employment and housing assistance, have also stemmed directly from our community justice 

reentry program. The organization of our own department has 

started to grow and recognize and appreciate how work is enhanced through direct citizen involvement in the reentry process. 

We have begun to change the conversation about returning offenders in local communities from how can we keep them out of our 

town to how can we make them a part of our community so they 

will not do harm again? 

During these difficult fiscal times, the Vermont legislature has 

recognized the importance of this work and recently has appropriated funding for these community-based strategies. 

Challenges we continue to face are lack of funding to support ongoing efforts and complement the state funding. In addition, we 

have not been resourced to conduct an empirical, longitudinal study 

to produce data to complement the anecdotal evidence that already 

exists. 

Submitted along with my testimony is documentation on two 

cases of higher level offenders who have been successfully reintegrated into the community using the COSA process. 

In closing, I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity 

to address this Committee and I also want to thank you for the 

partnership that we have enjoyed with the Federal Government in 

the past that spawned this program for us. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallito appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Well, as you know, in a small state 

like ours, we all have to work together. Thank you. 

Our next witness, Le’Ann Duran, is the Reentry Project Director 

of the Council of State Governments Justice Center. She oversees 

the center’s efforts to facilitate smooth and successful transition of 

individuals from prisons back to their communities. It includes 

managing the National Reentry Resource Center, which provides 

assistance to Second Chance Act grantees and applicants. 

Prior to that, she was administrator of the Michigan Office of Offender Reentry. That program, the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative, was nationally recognized for its effectiveness, its comprehensive approach to reentry. 

She received her bachelor’s degree from Texas Tech University, 

master’s degree from Colorado State. 

Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF LE’ANN DURAN, REENTRY PROJECT DIRECTOR, JUSTICE CENTER, COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS, 

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Ms. DURAN. Thank you, Chairman Leahy and members of the 

committee, for holding this hearing on Second Chance Act. My 

name is Le’Ann Duran. I am the Director of the National Reentry 

Resource Center. 

When Second Chance was passed in 2008, I had been working for 

5 years to design and implement a comprehensive reentry effort, 

called the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative. 

6 

Second Chance came at a critical time in Michigan’s work. For 

the first time, there was Federal legislation and a clear message 

from Congress that improving reentry policy and practice is vital 

to public safety. This message fueled public and legislative support 

for a reentry initiative which enhanced public safety by reducing 

recidivism and ultimately allowed the state to reduce its prison 

population by 12 percent, saving an estimated $900 million. 

The establishment of a National Reentry Resource Center was an 

important step to advance the reentry field. Congress and the Bureau of Justice Assistance are strengthening the government, community and faith-based organizations receiving Federal funds to 

ensure the most effective use of those investments. 

Following a highly competitive process, the Bureau of Justice Assistance was awarded the contract for the National Reentry Resource Center to the Council of State Governments Justice Center. 

We have learned a great deal from our work with Second Chance 

grantees, though it is still very early in the process. First off, Second Chance programs have been incredibly popular. In the first 

year of the program, over 950 applicants applied for Second Chance 

funding. Of those applications, 67 grantees were funded in 2009, 

spanning 31 states. 

This demand establishes Second Chance as one of the most competitive justice programs, with an only 7 percent funding rate in 

the first year. And based on the number of calls we fielded regarding 2010 programs, demand for funding is likely to grow. 

Two program types were funded in 2009. The first category, demonstration projects, were for state, local and tribal governments interested in advancing their reentry initiatives. The city of Baltimore received a demonstration grant and is implementing a project 

for 60 youth identified as high risk. The program primarily focuses 

on delivering enhanced case management. 

In Oklahoma, 200 high risk men returning to Oklahoma City will 

be given the opportunity to live in a transitional facility, where 

they will receive the treatment and programs they need to be successful upon release. 

The second category, mentoring grants, is available to nonprofit 

organizations to advance prosocial support. 

In Texas, Volunteers of America is using their grant to work 

with incarcerated mothers and will provide one-on-one mentoring 

and case management services. 

The Resource Center and its partners have designed three core 

strategies to respond to grantee needs, as well as the field at large. 

First, we are creating a number of Web-based tools to help practitioners help themselves. 

Second, we are building a more cohesive, knowledgeable reentry 

field by facilitating peer-to-peer learning. And third, we are providing individualized assistance to grantees to respond to their 

emerging needs. 

We are also working with the Urban Institute to develop an online What Works library for practitioners. 

So the big question is, how is it going? While still very early in 

the process, the program is thriving, both in the immense demand 

for grants, the establishment of a resource center for the field, and 

the early accomplishment by the first cohort of grantees. 

7 

It is apparent there is good work happening and a growth in the 

number of agencies that are working together to address the needs 

of this population. 

It is an exciting time to be working in the field of reentry, which 

has existed for barely more than a decade, but is vibrant with innovation. 

Also, through this process, a few challenges have emerged. First, 

around program design. Grantees in the reentry field are becoming 

increasingly familiar with the body of evidence about strategies 

that reduce recidivism, but they continue to struggle with translating these concepts into practice. 

The Second Chance Act is a strong step to providing the reentry 

field with guidance about smart program interventions, but it will 

take time to turn the battleship of corrections in a data-driven direction. 

Secondly, tracking recidivism. The Second Chance Act sets appropriately high expectations for sites to receive Federal funding to 

reduce recidivism, but grantees will need assistance understanding 

what to measure and how to obtain and routinely track quality information. 

BJA and the Resource Center will continue to work closely with 

grantees to measure the effects on recidivism, but it will take time. 

We appreciate your leadership and your work through Second 

Chance. It is a monumental step in changing how we address prisoner reentry. We hope you will reauthorize the program quickly to 

further advance the field at large and help expand our knowledge 

about reentry evidence and the practice of smart reentry strategies 

nationwide. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Duran appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

As our next witness is from Rhode Island, I will turn to the person who knows the most about Rhode Island on this committee, 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great 

honor for me to have the chance to introduce Sol Rodriguez, and, 

also, to recognize A.T. Wall, who is our Director of Corrections, and 

who has come down to be with Sol Rodriguez today. 

Sol has a long and distinguished career with community organizations in Rhode Island. She has run the group that is now called 

Open Doors for, I think, 8 years. Before that, it was called the 

Family Life Center. I go way back with this organization and was 

present at the creation. 

I think the thing that is so great about today is that the Director 

of Corrections came down to be with her today. It shows how closely integrated our corrections infrastructure is with our community 

infrastructure, and it is extraordinarily important, because there 

are certain neighborhoods in Rhode Island that just get hit particularly hard by the outflow of the prison system. 

There are neighborhoods where one in four 18 to 35-year-olds on 

the street are under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. So you can imagine how many people that neighborhood is 

forced to absorb week after week, month after month. 

8 

So I am delighted to welcome to her to this committee and to 

share her testimony with all of us. 

Welcome, Sol, and thank you for—Ms. Rodriguez, and thank you 

for being here. 

STATEMENT OF SOL RODRIGUEZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

OPEN-DOOR, PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND 

Ms. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Senator Leahy, distinguished members of the committee. My name is Sol Rodriguez, and I want to 

thank you for inviting me here to speak. 

I am the Executive Director of OPEN-DOOR, a nonprofit organization based on Rhode Island. 

OPEN-DOOR was establish in 2002 with the sole purpose of 

working with prisoner coming home from incarceration and their 

families. We have a long history of supporting this prisoner reentry 

program, and we’re faimliar with the many challenges they face. 

Successful reentry is difficult, even for those people who are 

deeply committed to the process. Everyone who comes to see us is 

on the threshold of change. However, without critical resources, 

their chances of success are slim to none. 

In Rhode Island, individuals are given no more than a bus ticket 

back home once they are released from prison. People coming out 

of the prison system return to fractured relationships, little or no 

financial resources, few job prospects, and because of their criminal 

record, they face legal discrimination in employment and in housing, and mounting debt. 

Organizations that serve similar populations leave out this population because of their need to meet performance metrics and the 

perception that they pose risk and that they cannot achieve as 

other groups can. 

Even organizations that we work with often find it difficult to 

provide services for this population due to their multi layered 

needs. Throughout the years, OpenDoors has managed to open the 

doors for many of our folks who are coming home. 

Many of our clients have doors slammed on them over and over 

again and, as you can imagine, this becomes fairly demoralizing. 

Incarceration rates in this country continue to escalate at an 

alarming pace. There are nearly 2.4 million people in prison, one 

out of 31 individuals is under some kind of supervision. 

As a country, we spend $69 billion on prisons, and Rhode Island 

spends an average of $40,000 per inmate. 

Despite this, people continue to return back to the prison system 

at disturbing rates. Over 62 percent of people released from Rhode 

Island prisons return back within 3 years. 

Another consequence is the loss of revenue to the state and their 

lack of participation in work during the peak age, of 21 to 35. The 

long-term consequence is that these individuals will not be able to 

pay into Social Security. If this trend continues, we will bear the 

financial burden of these people for a long time to come with services, such as services for the homeless, urgent medical care, public 

assistance to families and costs associated to children in state custody, as well as the cost of public safety. 

We need to act to address this situation, as it isn’t going to go 

away. There is proof that recidivism can be successfully remediVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:34 Mar 08, 2011 Jkt 064378 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\64378.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
9 

ated, as in Michigan, where significant investment by the state reduced the recidivism rate from 55 percent to 38 percent. 

But a lot of states do not have the resources to do what Michigan 

did. At OPEN-DOOR, we are attempting to find some solution to 

this problem. We offer a one-stop center for people coming out of 

prison, and we see approximately, 1000 people a year, that come 

to our Center for the first time. This isn’t counting the people who 

continue to come back for services. 

We prepare individuals for release from incarceration at the 

adult correctional facility and we offer programs, like employment 

and housing preparedness, job search, financial literacy, one-on-one 

mentoring, civic participation, financial literacy, computer classes, 

and recovery services. 

We work to build relationships with these individuals, or provide 

a safe place for them in the community; so that when they come 

out, they are not drawn back to those previous relationships and 

destructive social environment that they came from. 

We provide mentoring through the Second Chance Act; this includes relationship-building activities and community events and 

support groups, and one-on-one mentoring. 

Our mentors and mentees receive extensive training and assessment in order to make successful matches. 

We started our program back in January 2010 and to date, we 

have 10 matches. Many of our mentors are formerly incarcerated 

people who have been doing well and want to be mentors to other 

people. And so we screen folks to make sure that they are doing 

very well in the community before we they are allowed to be mentors. 

But we are looking for mentors in the community that are business people, and are employers. We want to begin to create those 

relationships long term. 

In closing I want to make some recommendations. I want to recommend that you need to continue to allocate funding, specifically 

for formerly incarcerated individuals. Direct finding for this population is critical. 

Commitment to this issue long term critical, as well. This issue 

is not going to go away, and we need the money long-term and the 

resources long-term. 

Allow for nonprofits like us to receive direct funding to do other 

things besides mentoring. It is pretty clear that a good job is the 

single largest factor in determining someone’s success out here, and 

to stay out of prison. 

Addressing the pipeline into prison is another critical need. We 

need to begin to look at innovative programs that really help support people and provide essential interventions before they go to 

prison, so that we can address the flow into to prison. 

I want to thank you very much for your consideration and support, not just for the work that we do, but for the work around the 

country. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Duran appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. I neglected to do it before. I was reading the testimony prior to the hearing. I was struck 

10 

with a number of the case studies that Mr. Pallito had. And an article without objecting, I will put those additional things, the case 

studies and all as intended. They bring home what real people are 

and what real people do, and I will put that in the record as part 

of your testimony. 

Thank you. And for the record, they were case studies of offenders that had particularly violent past histories. 

Chairman LEAHY. That is what I understand. 

Now, David Muhlhausen is a senor policy analyst at the Heritage 

Foundation Center for Data. He has testified before Congress on 

several previous occasions about law enforcement grant programs, 

particularly the COPS program. 

One of the staff suggested you are here so often, we should give 

you one of these permanent name plates. 

He received a Ph.D. in public policy from the University of Maryland Baltimore County, bachelor’s degree in political science. Just 

to say, he is from Forestburg. He is currently an adjunct professor 

of public policy at George Mason. Please go ahead, Doctor. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MUHLHAUSEN, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Thank you. My name is David Muhlhausen. 

I am a senior policy analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at the 

Heritage Foundation. I thank Chairman Patrick Leahy, Ranking 

Member Jeff Sessions, and the rest of the Committee for the opportunity to testify today on the Second Chance Act. 

The views that I express in this testimony are my own and 

should not be construed as representing any official position of the 

Heritage Foundation. 

Congress’ desire to weigh in on prisoner reentry programs. In 

2008 alone, over 735,000 prisoners were released back into society. 

Federal, state and local governments need to operate effective reentry programs. Preventing former prisoners from returning to 

prison is a worthy goal. 

When Congress first passed the Second Chance Act I in 2008, little was known about the effectiveness of prisoner reentry programs. The same holds true for today. We simply do not have 

enough knowledge about what works and what does not work. 

A major goal of reauthorizing the Second Chance Act I should be 

to greatly enhance our knowledge about the effectiveness of these 

programs. For this reason, I will outline five years to the successful 

evaluation of these programs. 

First and foremost, Congress needs to expressly mandate in the 

reauthorization of the Act the experimental evaluation of prisoner 

reentry programs. By experimental evaluation, I mean evaluation 

that uses random assignment to select individuals for treatment 

and for other individuals to go into control groups. This method is 

considered the gold standard, because random assignment is most 

likely to yield valid estimates of program impact. Less rigorous designs yield less reliable results. 

When Congress creates programs, especially state and local programs, we need to make sure that these programs are—when they 

11 

are evaluated, they undergo large-multisite evaluations, so that is 

my second point. 

These programs funded by the Federal Government are not funded, are not funded. They are implemented across the entire Nation. 

Because Federal grants fund agencies and programs across the Nation, we need to have multisite national large-scale evaluations. 

Third, Congress needs to provide instructions on the types of outcome measures that will be used to assess effectiveness. When assessing the impact of reentry programs, the most effective measure 

or the most important measure is recidivism. While intermediate 

measures, such as finding employment and housing, are important, 

these outcomes are not the ultimate goal of reentry programs. 

If former prisoners continue to commit crimes after being released from prison, then successful; intermediate measures, while 

important, still matter little to judging how effective programs are. 

Fourth, Congress needs to institute procedures that will encourage government agencies, often possessing entrenched biases 

against experimental evaluation, to carry out these studies. 

One recommended method is that not later than 1 year afer the 

preauthorization of the Act and annually thereafter, the Departments of Justice and Labor be required to individually submit to 

Congress a report on the progress their departments are making in 

evaluating the programs authorized under the Act. 

Thirty days after the report is submitted to Congress, it should 

be made available on the department Websites. 

Last, Congressionally mandated evaluations, upon completion, 

must be submitted to Congress in a timely manner. Thirty days 

after any evaluation is submitted to Congress, they should be made 

available, also, on the department’s Websites. 

Prisoner reentry programs need to be rigorously evaluated to determine their effectiveness at reducing recidivism. I believe the 

need for more evaluations transcends political party lines. Both 

Democrats and Republicans should agree on this issue. 

Policymakers should not implement prisoner reentry programs, 

because advocates for Federal funding believe these programs are 

effective. There has to be a solid base, a scientific knowledge demonstrating that these programs work. Thus, Congress needs to do 

more to ensure that the reentry programs it funds are rigorously 

evaluated. 

That is all. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Muhlhausen appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Muhlhausen. 

Our next witness is Howard Husock. He is the Vice President of 

Policy Research and Director of the Social Entrepreneurship Initiative at the Manhattan Institute. 

Mr. Husock has been widely published on housing and urban policy issues, and has spoken in policy forums sponsored by the Federal Government and the States of California and Massachusetts. 

Prior to his time at the Manhattan Institute, Mr. Husock worked 

at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, and was 

a broadcaster and documentary filmmaker at WGBH in Boston, 

Massachusetts, which reaches into Rhode Island. 

12 

Mr. Husock graduated from Boston University School of Public 

Communications and was later a fellow at Princeton University’s 

Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. And we 

welcome him to the committees. 

Mr. Husock. 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD HUSOCK, VICE PRESIDENT, POLICY 

RESEARCH, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Mr. HUSOCK. Thank you so much, Senator Whitehouse, Ranking 

Member Sessions, and members of the committee. 

In addition to the policy research we do at the Manhattan Institute, we’ve long tried to play a problem-solving role in social problems, especially as they affect our cities. 

In that context, we recently returned our attention to the 

daunting problem addressed in the Second Chance Act, that is, successful prisoner reentry, a goal we understand to be central to the 

safety of our cities and the restoration of healthy family life in 

households in which parents, often fathers, have been incarcerated. 

It is not a minor problem, not when 700,000 individuals are released from prison annually and 44 percent are re-arrested just 

within 1 year. 

It is an important problem, but at the same time, we believe that 

in reauthorization, the Second Chance Act can still be improved. 

And in that context, I’d like to share with you some reflections on 

the institute’s experience in helping to establish, fund and operate 

a reentry program in cooperation with the city of Newark, New 

Jersey, whose results to date and the results of similar programs 

have convinced us that for such efforts to be successful, they must 

emphasize employment. We call it rapid attachment to work, and 

we believe that there are aspects of the way that rapid attachment 

program in Newark is funded, particularly ITSA, AART, EMT, use 

of matching private dollars and the way it’s managed, particularly 

its emphasis on pay for performance among social service providers, which can all be useful elements of a reauthorized Second 

Chance. 

The Newark initiative began, when, in response to then the mention of prisoner reentry in 2006, his 2006 inaugural address, the 

Manhattan Institute approached Newark Mayor Cory Booker. 

We agreed to work together on a program for newly released exoffenders. Staying out of trouble in the first few weeks, the mayor 

believed, was crucial and the employment can be the hub around 

which a non-criminal life can be organized. 

His vision has borne fruit. Thanks to $2 million in Federal funds, 

matched by $3 million in private philanthropic funds, a small portion of which has allowed the institute to provide loaned executive 

help to the city of Newark. 

Six agencies in Newark today compete with each other to help 

place those coming out of prison rapidly into jobs. They are proving 

successful, even in today’s difficult economy; 58 percent of the 

1,000 plus program a intended seen to date have been placed in 

jobs with an hourly wage of more than $9 an hour. And to date, 

after more than a year, only 8 percent of all participants have been 

re-arrested. 

13 

At the same time, crime in Newark, which historically has involved violence often between two individuals with criminal 

records, has dropped sharply and, in March, the city saw its first 

month in 40 years without a murder. 

Other work-oriented reentry programs are showing similar 

progress. In New York, the Ready, Willing and Able program, 

which includes employment as a central part of it, must be evaluated by a Harvard University sociologist who found that 3 years 

after release, its clients have 30 percent fewer arrests than a comparison group. 

In addition, the Ready for Work Program, which was a Department of Labor model program, found that between 2003 and 2006, 

recidivism in this work-focused program was reduced by 34 to 50 

percent. 

There is no accountabilty without clear results, however. And in 

Newark, in keeping with the best thinking on our performance 

management, we are tracking and comparing the placement 

records of individual job providers, job placement providers, and by 

tying compensation to results, we believe that we can affect improved performance. 

In other words, it is our view that there is an emerging formula 

for successful reentry, a formula based on work as intended, performance management, and private matching funds. And a reauthorized Second Chance Act, which gave top priority to demonstration projects, incorporating these approaches, could play a key role 

in influencing the billions spent by state corrections, parole and 

probation programs, which will continue to play the lead. 

There is one additional element which the Act could encourage, 

which has yet to be incorporated into reentry programs, but is also 

a significant barrier, and half of them owe back child support payments. It is a problem that only gets worse when they are in person. 

The typical prison parent owed $10,000 when he goes behind bars, $20,000 when he leaves, because wages can be garnished to 

pay child support. Such arrearage is a powerful deterrent to workforce participation. 

A reauthorized Second Chance Act, however, could encourage its 

demonstration programs to use these child support payments constructively by linking reductions in arrearage to getting and keeping a job; and, with the permission of either parent involved, playing a role in family life. 

America’s criminal justice system, including reentry through parole, has historically been and will continue to be primarily the 

province of state government and current budget deficits leave little room for a Federal role. 

That is why it is especially important for a reauthorized Second 

Chance Act to support those model programs that could influence 

reentry practice broadly. 

The best way to do that, the Manhattan Institute believes, is to 

emphasize and encourage those programs focused on rapid attachment to work. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Husock appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

14 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Commissioner, you talked about the Department of Corrections 

working with the cities and towns in Vermont. The largest one is 

38,000 people, the smallest is just about 38 to try to get them to 

reintegrate. 

I know it is not easy. You are asking people to spend scarce time 

and resources to bring ex-offenders into the communities. How do 

you get communities to engage in this kind of reentry effort? 

Mr. PALLITO. I think I would best describe it as an evolving conversation. It was a conversation that really started between the Department of Corrections and our local communities many, many 

years ago, and, through persistent and consistent messaging, we 

really tried to shift the attitude. 

Interestingly enough, the city of Barre, that you have mentioned 

that my wife is from, has an undue burden of corrections offenders 

that come and go within the city, and saw an opportunity to engage 

the Department of Corrections. 

So rather than keep the conversation about keep them out of our 

neighborhood, keep them out of our neighborhood—as one of the 

panelists mentioned earlier, 90 percent of offenders are coming 

back to communities, and that is a fact, 95 percent in some states. 

The city of Barre in Vermont—— 

Chairman LEAHY. So in other words, you are dealing with a reality, whether you want to or not. 

Mr. PALLITO. Absolutely, absolutely, And so the city of Barre 

really has started to turn that conversation and engage the Department of Corrections. And I have gone to several community meetings. I would describe the first as I asked my wife to be my security 

guard on the way out to the second, where the mayor and I have 

forged a very positive relationship and we have partnered with the 

city. 

One of the messages that I have consistently said, as the commissioner and the deputy commissioner and the commissioner before me, is the State of Vermont is not going to solve this issue on 

its own. We need the community, we need community partners to 

step up, to be engaged, and to help us out with this issue. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Ms. Duran, let me ask you. This 

morning, the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General released a report on the department’s management of prisoners reentry program. They found the department did not adequately 

monitor and evaluate some of the reentry programs. They couldn’t 

determine whether they were successful in reducing recidivism. So 

I hope the Justice Department will immediately be moving to consider and implement some of the IG’s recommendations. 

Now, the good news is the inspector general’s report focused on 

programs that were in place before the Second Chance Act. They 

said that the Second Chance Act was—that those programs are better designed, although it is too early to tell thoroughly. 

So what steps do you take to make sure, especially with this report, and I realize it just came out this morning, to make sure the 

Second Chance Act Grantees and those who administer them are 

doing it right? 

Ms. DURAN. I think you are right that the Second Chance Act 

was a response to some of the design flaws we observed through 

15 

SVORI and some of the other Federal reentry grant programs that 

have gone before, and we’ve had the opportunity to learn a lot from 

those previous initiatives and have incorporated those into the way 

that Second Chance is being implemented. 

For example Second Chance is a competitive grant effort. States 

and local governments, for demonstration projects, are required to 

engage in planning prior to receiving the award, and demonstrating their readiness to receive the Federal funds is key to 

being winning applicants. SVORI was a blanket grant program. 

Also, each state is different and needs to allow for the flexibility 

of their differences in terms of their populations that they are managing the size of their communites. Vermont is clearly different 

than California. 

Second Chance provides an opportunity for states to be innovative in the way that they respond to their unique needs with their 

population and with their community, and we have given those 

grantees that flexibility through Second Chance. 

Chairman LEAHY. Speaking of what she said about the states 

being different, Commissioner, if I can go back to you just for a moment. 

You must talk with your counterparts in other parts of the country, I assume. 

Mr. PALLITO. Correct. 

Chairman LEAHY. You probably both do. Do you find, and this 

may seem like an easy question, but I’m curious. Do you find any 

states you talk with where they say, ‘‘Hey, we’re all set up. We’ve 

got plenty of state funding to do the kind of programs we want. 

Mr. PALLITO. Absolutely not. I think every Department of Corrections in the country is under constant budget pressure. One of my 

personal frustrations as the Commissioner of Corrections is as the 

incarcerated population grows, the easy answer to a budget reduction is to cut the Department of Corrections staff or close a facility 

that is then responsible for that incarceration. Then the liability, 

in the end, frankly, lands with the Commissioner’s office. That’s my 

personal opinion. 

So unless we are more creative in terms of how we use incarceration, to make sure that on the front end, we are very stringent 

in what we use, and then on the back end to make sure that we 

do very comprehensive offender reentry planning so that we do not 

just simply let offenders out and they cycle back in. 

But all states, I think, face the same exact challenge. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, keep talking to our mayors and our 

boards of aldermen and tell them. 

Mr. PALLITO. I will, as long as they will keep listening to me. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Jeff. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been a 

subject of tremendous national interest for a long time. It is not the 

first time it has been brought up. 

In fact, the 1960s and 1970s, there was a belief that prison was 

no good for anybody. Judges, really, a lot of them just refused to 

send people to jail. Crime rates surged, and it took into the 1980s 

for the Nation to realize that our hopes and wishes and dreams did 

not match reality. 

16 

I remember a study in the late 1970s that I kept in my desk 

when I was United States attorney that dealt with these reentry 

programs and recidivism rates, and the net of it was, I will summarize, it compared a prison in which it—it was a very Spartan prison, very little recreation, job training, benefits, and one that had 

all kinds of education and other programs, and the recidivism rate 

was the same. 

That is hard to believe, but, in fact, if we knew how it worked, 

why have we not already figured out how to do it? It is very hard, 

very hard. 

Mr. Husock, you suggest that you got a 30-percent reduction. 

Even your numbers probably make me a bit suspicious. But if you 

got a 20-percent reduction in recidivism rate, I would give you an 

A, if you could maintain that and replicate that in another place. 

That is tremendous, really, if we get 20 percent fewer people 

recidivating, having to go to jail and be put in jail and cannot support their families, cannot hold down a job. 

And my instincts are that this thing of giving a person a job immediately out of prison would not be of benefit. That makes sense 

to me. 

Well, we create these programs. Here, the Chairman made reference to the Department of Justice programs. The inspector general audit came out today. Not a good audit. Bad. This is what they 

found. The IG found that the OJP did not adequately define key 

terms essential for determining whether program goals are met; 

did not require grantees to identify baseline recidivism rates needed to calculate changes in recidivism; and, did not analyze performance measurement data. 

As a result of these design flaws, neither OJP nor the inspector 

general could definitively determine the effectiveness of OJP’s 

grant programs in reducing recidivism. Well, this is not good. 

Ms. Duran, you mentioned the Second Chance Act that we did 

2 years ago was different, but they said the same design flaws the 

report does for existing ‘‘it.’’ 

Mr. Muhlhausen, do you know how many existing reentry programs are funded by the Federal Government? Do we have any 

idea of how many state programs exist out there? And in your opinion, are they effectively monitored so we can determine what actually works and what clearly does not work? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, I think getting a hard count of how 

many reentry programs are out there is going to be a little difficult. 

But I would say that this report does not inspire confidence in Office of Justice Programs. 

The fact that they are giving out money without effective performance monitoring protocols in place, no clear definition of how 

to measure recidivism, these are basic things that should be done. 

And that is why I think that—— 

Senator SESSIONS. One of the things that I complained about is 

that these programs get to pick their population. They can pick the 

target population. 

It is kind of like an insurance company, it seems to me, that 

cherry-picks healthier patients. 

Is that the way you would analyze that concern? 

17 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, yes. I have seen this happen with Department of Labor job training programs, where it is called creaming, where they find—they select individuals that they are going to 

monitor that are most likely to succeed and the individuals who are 

the hard cases they sort of do not track. And so they end up inflating their performance data. 

So that is why I think we need to have the National Institute 

of Justice do a lot of multisite, randomized experiments to find out 

whether these programs work. 

Senator SESSIONS. I agree, because the states are spending billions, as you said, Mr. Husock, on these programs and our money 

is chicken feed compared to what states are spending. 

So if we could help them identify programs that actually work, 

even if it is 10, 20 percent better than their current program, and 

they could apply their resources more effectively, this would be a 

smart role for the Federal Government. Would you agree, Mr. 

Husock? 

Mr. HUSOCK. I could not agree more. And when we talk about 

how many reentry programs are out there, every state has got divisions of parole. That is a reentry program. Why do we not want to 

spend the money that we are spending already more effectively? 

For instance, should not parole officers be judged by not how 

many people they lock up again, but how many they place in employment? Maybe we want to change the way we manage the core 

programs that we are already running. 

But certainly, I think the Second Chance Act can point in the 

right direction, but it is never going to substitute. 

Senator SESSIONS. My time is up. And I would just say I thank 

my colleagues, who are interested in this subject. It has just sort 

of been an interest of mine ever since I have been prosecuting cases 

from the mid-1970s on, and 90-percent of the people are convicted 

that go to trial. 

The question is how long they serve and what is going to happen 

to them. So I think we are striving to accomplish something worthwhile. I would like to see us focus more on identifying what works 

through rigorous focus and help our states by giving that information so they can better utilize the resources that they have. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, since I will be presiding at 

the end, I am here until the bitter end, I would be delighted to 

yield to Senator Franken. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you, Senator Whitehouse. This also has been of great interest to me for a long time. 

And I want to thank you, Mr. Muhlhausen, for urging that we 

have more scientific look and more comprehensive data on this, because that is—I just think we should do that on everything, because that is going to pay off to see what works, because we really 

kind of do not have a choice, do we? 

What percentage of—I think, Mr. Pallito said the number was 90 

to 95 percent—is that right? And I think, Mr. Muhlhausen, you 

18 

said that releasing offenders into society increases crime. Now, you 

are not suggesting we just do not release people, are you? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. No, no. I am just saying, it is just a statement 

of fact that we have high recidivism rates, and so the national consequence of releasing offenders from prison is we are going to get 

more crime. 

Senator FRANKEN. But the alternative is just locking them up 

and throwing away the key, and we do not do that either, do we? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. No, we do not. Obviously, what I would say 

is that while serious and violent offenders should serve lengthy 

amounts of time in prison—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Obviously. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. [continuing]. A lot of people who are released 

deserve to get some sort of help in transitioning back into society 

and I think, hopefully, if we identify what works and we can replicate what works, we will have some good things to talk about in 

future reauthorization of the Act. 

Senator FRANKEN. There is another premise here that you could 

look at, too, which is maybe the fewer prisoners we have in the 

first place, that the less increase in crime there would be when you 

release less prisoners. 

What I am kind of getting at is maybe—do you understand what 

I am saying? I am saying that maybe, say, you did early childhood 

education. So we invested in people early in life, and so there were 

fewer criminals, or maybe even caught juvenile, youth offenders 

earlier. 

Ms. Duran, in your testimony, you outlined several programs 

funded by the Second Chance Act, including those that assist youth 

offenders with histories of substance abuse and mental health 

needs. 

Can you talk more about specifically which services work best for 

this population both during incarceration and after? 

Ms. DURAN. I think it is very important that step, when trying 

to change the likelihood that someone is going to commit a crime 

in the future, that we have a good understanding of what the risk 

and needs are of that individual. And the most important thing 

that we can do is match their risk and their needs to the services 

that are going to help them change their behavior and make different choices when they come back home. 

Certainly, critical services that have shown to make a difference 

are effective substance abuse treatment and mental health services, both during incarceration and upon release. 

It is most important that these services are delivered in the community, where they have to struggle with sobriety and maintaining 

a crime free life. 

As Mr. Husock also described, rapid attachment to employment 

is also critically important. The Second Chance Act gives grantees 

the flexibility to design their programs to target the services and 

supports that they feel will make a difference for their population 

based on what they know about their risks and needs of who they 

are working and be able to fund those programs and put them in 

place with their grant. 

Senator FRANKEN. I do not know about—Senator Sessions has 

left. I do not know about the study he carries around and whether 

19 

it would meet Mr. Muhlhausen’s very, very high degree of rigor. 

There is no way of knowing, is there? 

In 2008, the Minnesota Department of Corrections enacted a 

pilot reentry program, called the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Program, or MCORP. MCORP provides its clients 

help in finding a job, housing assistance, chemical abuse treatment 

and a variety of other services. 

It is still a premium program, but results from the first year are 

incredibly encouraging. They have reduced re-arrest rates by 37 

percent. 

I was out for Husock’s testimony and I am sorry about that. But 

I think we have found things that work and meanwhile, there are 

prisoners—I am going to end this soon—there are prisoners who 

are getting out tomorrow and the next day and the next day and 

the next day. They are getting out. 

And I agree with Dr. Muhlhausen that we have to do sciencebased research on this. But in the meantime, they are getting out. 

And in the meantime, let us use what seems to be anecdotally 

working. 

And I am just going to wrap up right now, but I would like to— 

I am on the Help Committee and I want to do a hearing on early 

childhood education. And what I want—I do not want to have the 

largest prison population in the world. And, yes, Dr. Muhlhausen, 

we have recidivism; and, yes, when You release prisoners, there is 

more crime. 

But I think the alternative starts very, very early. But today we 

are talking about what works on recidivism, and I thank you all 

for your work. 

Thank you, all, all of you, for your work. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

Could you, Ms. Rodriguez, give us your take on what measures 

are appropriate to evaluate the effectiveness of the program that 

OpenDoors manages and what improvements in measurement 

would you recommend from where you are? 

Ms. RODRIGUEZ. I very much agree with Mr. Muhlhausen about 

more scientific, more rigorous studies with regards to recidivism. 

We actually do administer a criminogenic needs and risk management and risk assessment, for those people in the mentoring 

program. 

We administer it when they first get involved in the program and 

we will administer it a year from now to see how effective—whether we have been able, to both the risk and the need of the individual. 

We also track whether people are re-incarcerated. 

Our project is quite small, so we’re able to track re-incarceration. 

We do that with many of our programs. Unfortunately, we do not 

have the capacity internally to do a scientific sort of data analysis 

of recidivism in our state, which I think is pretty important to do, 

but I think most states just do not have that capacity or resources. 

So putting some resources in that would be really helpful, I think 

we all welcome that sort of analysis. It would give us some sense 

of how things are working. 

All I can say is we worked very much—we are small states. We 

see a lot of people at our—I see a lot of people multiple times. I 

20 

see people trying. All I can talk about without the science behind 

it is how hard it is for people and how hard they try. 

So we have been working hard with these individuals, but we 

would welcome a scientific study of recidivism. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Ms. Duran, one of the—I’m a big supporter of and was, as I said earlier, in kind of at the creation of 

the Famly Life and traveled out of state to visit other places as we 

were working with some of the African-American churches to try 

to get this underway. 

The objection that comes is that these people are criminals. They 

have broken the social contract. Why should we make any particular effort on their behalf? There are two responses to that that 

I have heard. One is that from a cost perspective, it is in 

everybody’s interest to try to avoid re-incarceration. Whether or not 

you particularly like the individual, you are better off if they are 

working and paying taxes than if they are incarcerated at the ACI 

and absorbing your tax dollars. 

The second is that the way in which offenders emerge from our 

prisons and get distributed among our neighborhoods is far from 

even. There are particular neighborhoods that receive a real onslaught of returning, reentering prisoners. And for the sake of the 

people in those neighborhoods, forget the people who are returning, 

for the sake of the people who are in those neighborhoods and who 

are law abiding, it is important that there be the social services so 

that they can continue to have a safe and orderly life and deal with 

the issues that a very big returning formerly incarcerated population presents. 

Would you evaluate for me those thoughts and add any that you 

would care to add? 

Ms. DURAN. I think you are right. I mean, at the end of the day, 

successful reentry is about what happens in those neighborhoods 

and in those communities. And this is a complex social challenge. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And to the taxpayer, right? 

Ms. DURAN. Yes. Absolutely. Certainly, getting communities involved in coming up with creative and innovative solutions to reducing crime in their neighborhoods and their communities is a 

critical part of what will make for effective reentry planning. 

It has to start with the communities, in partnership with Departments of Corrections and community supervision agencies. And I 

think Vermont and Commissioner Pallito described a very, very 

great example of the way the community can work with state and 

local government and corrections agencies to come together on 

these challenges, because no one neighborhood and no one government agency can do it alone. 

Second Chance has set a very clear example, requiring this type 

of collaboration to be in place prior to submitting grant applications, which I think is a strong step in sending the message that 

the collaboration is essential, because this challenge is so enormous. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We have talked a lot about the metrics 

and the statistics and the measurements demographically during 

the course of this hearing. The time of the hearing is concluding. 

21 

What I would like to do is ask Ms. Rodriguez, if you would, to 

end on a note of what the possibilities are here; and, if you do not 

mind, you know Andres Idarraga (ph)? 

Ms. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, I do. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Would you mind relating for the record 

here, just briefly, his story, how he came to you and where he 

ended up? 

Ms. RODRIGUEZ. Andres Idarraga is a young man who spent 

about 7 years in prison. He had a pretty extensive criminal history 

prior to his incarceration, but he was a very bright young man. 

We met Andres when he was released from prison. He might 

have been out about 6 months. We were working, actually, in the 

office to restore voting rights for people on probation and parole, 

and Andres was somebody who was not going to be able to vote for 

30 years. 

So he would be 60 when he could vote, and he was very interested in voting and interested in getting involved in the work that 

we were doing. 

Eventually, we ended up hiring Andres, who was actually a URI 

student. Subsequently, Andres applied to Brown and was accepted 

to Brown, received a bachelor’s degree from Brown and is currently 

going to Yale Law School. 

Andres is one guy. He is a pretty amazing guy, but there are 

many young men like Andres. I have to say, I was just talking 

about another young man who is headed to law school and who is 

also one of ours who has come through the center and we have 

helped. 

There is so much potential among these young men and most of 

them are relatively young. So turning our backs on them is—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So it is a fair point to make, in your experience anyway, that in addition to the sort of negative argument 

of preventing future bad behavior and preventing the cost of recidivism, there are some real scars in this. 

So there are some real stars in this surprising population who 

can, when they turn their lives around, accomplish great things. 

There are some extraordinary people that are in our prison systems 

with extraordinary talents, and we need to harness those talents 

and encourage those talents and help those people achieve what 

they can achieve. 

This is part of what we do. We really try to provide them the 

space and believe in them so that they can continue to improve 

their lives. And Andres is one young man, but there are many 

young men in Rhode Island and I’m sure across the country. 

So these services are critical. Yes, we need to measure them. But 

they are critical services, and I believe we have no choice, really. 

We have no choice as a society. They are coming back to our communities. They are coming back to families. And we are just creating more of a burden on families and communities if we do not 

help them become productive members of society. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, I appreciate very much everyone’s 

testimony here today. 

We will keep the record of this hearing open for 1 week. So if 

anyone wishes to supplement their testimony or provide additional 

22 

testimony or comments into the proceeding, they have that 1 week 

to do so. 

I am grateful to those of you who have taken the trouble to come 

here. Some of you have traveled some distance to come here. This 

has been very helpful. I think this is a vitally important issue for 

us to address. 

To digress just for a minute, when you think about what we 

spend on incarcerating people and when you think about what we 

spend policing the general population and when you think that the 

real kind of crux was where those people come out of the issue population, that should be kind of a gap where we have to struggle for 

funding when so much tax revenue goes to support our prison system and our general policing. 

I think it is a wise investment and we look forward to trying to 

make that investment as smart as we can make it. 

Thank you all very much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

23 


64378.001
24 


64378.002
25 


64378.003
26 


64378.004
27 


64378.005
28 


64378.006
29 


64378.007
30 


64378.008
31 


64378.009
32 


64378.010
33 


64378.011
34 


64378.012
35 


64378.013
36 


64378.014
37 


64378.015
38 


64378.016
39 


64378.017
40 


64378.018
41 


64378.019
42 


64378.020
43 


64378.021
44 


64378.022
45 


64378.023
46 


64378.024
47 


64378.025
48 


64378.026
49 


64378.027
50 


64378.028
51 


64378.029
52 


64378.030
53 


64378.031
54 


64378.032
55 


64378.033
56 


64378.034
57 


64378.035
58 


64378.036
59 


64378.037
60 


64378.038
61 


64378.039
62 


64378.040
63 


64378.041
64 


64378.042
65 


64378.043
66 


64378.044
67 


64378.045
68 


64378.046
69 


64378.047
70 


64378.048
71 


64378.049
72 


64378.050
73 


64378.051
74 


64378.052
75 


64378.053
76 


64378.054
77 


64378.055
78 


64378.056
79 


64378.057
80 


64378.058
81 


64378.059
82 


64378.060
83 


64378.061
84 


64378.062
85 


64378.063
86 


64378.064
87 


64378.065
88 


64378.066
89 


64378.067
90 


64378.068
91 


64378.069
92 


64378.070
93 


64378.071
94 


64378.072
95 


64378.073
96 


64378.074
97 


64378.075
98 


64378.076
99 


64378.077
100 


64378.078
101 


64378.079
102 


64378.080
103 


64378.081
104 


64378.082
105 


64378.083
106 


64378.084
107 


64378.085
108 


64378.086
109 


64378.087
110 


64378.088
111 


64378.089
112 


64378.090
113 


64378.091
114 


64378.092
115 


64378.093
116 


64378.094
117 


64378.095
118 


64378.096
119 


64378.097
120 


64378.099
121 


64378.100
122 


64378.101
123 


64378.102
124 


64378.103
125 


64378.104
126 


64378.105
127 


64378.106
128 


64378.107
129 


64378.108
130 


64378.109
131 


64378.110
132 


64378.111
133 


64378.112
134 


64378.113
135 


64378.114
136 


64378.115
137 


64378.116
138 


64378.117
139 


64378.118
140 


64378.119
141 


64378.120
142 


64378.121
143 


64378.122
144 


64378.123
145 


64378.124
146 


64378.125
147 


64378.126
148 


64378.127
149 


64378.128
150 


64378.129
151 


64378.130
152 


64378.131
153 


64378.132
154 


64378.133
155 


64378.134
156 


64378.135
157 


64378.136
158 


64378.137
159 


64378.138
160 


64378.139
161 


64378.140
162 


64378.141
163 


64378.142
164 


64378.143
165 


64378.144
166 


64378.145
167 


64378.146
168 


64378.147
169 


64378.148
170 


64378.149
171 


64378.150
172 


64378.151
173 


64378.152
174 


64378.153
175 


64378.154
176 


64378.155
177 


64378.156
178 


64378.157
179 


64378.158
180 


64378.159
181 


64378.160
182 


64378.161
183 


64378.162
184 


64378.163
185 


64378.164
186 


64378.165
187 


64378.166
188 


64378.167
189 


64378.168
190 


64378.169
191 


64378.170
192 


64378.171
193 


64378.172
194 


64378.173
195 


64378.174
196 


64378.175
197 


64378.176
198 


64378.177
199 


64378.178
200 


64378.179
201 


64378.180
202 


64378.181
203 


64378.182
204 


64378.183
205 


64378.184
206 


64378.185
207 


64378.186
208 


64378.187
209 


64378.206
210 


64378.207
211 


64378.208
212 


64378.209
213 


64378.211
214 


64378.212
215 


64378.213
216 


64378.214
217 

Æ 


64378.215